Sqrl said:
I mean I think we agree on what is far and away the most likely conclusion to the case, but I don't base my view on any portion of the case on the fact that I want it to take that course, that's called bias. Obama put the Certificate of Live Birth forward as his evidence, so shouldn't it be open to scrutiny to those whose argument it would serve to refute? Or are we to set a precedent whereby declaring you have a document and posting pictures of it is sufficient proof that you do and that it is legit? Certainly reasonable limits should be placed on the depth of the scrutiny but zero physical scrutiny is no more reasonable an expectation than it is to require Obama to prove a universal negative. While I'm sure you're confident that Obama's word is sufficient proof, I am a firm believer in the following quote: "If one's actions are honest, one does not need the pre-dated confidence of others." - Francisco D'Anconia
|
Why do you insult me? I don't trust Obama, the Republican Governor's Health Department says it's real. To question it is acceptable but implies a larger conspiracy that no one wants to admit because they know how stupid it sounds.
BTW, I love the part where D'Anconia goes double pistol on the shills working for Rearden.
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.